next »

[Zizka]

Hey guys,

I don't know if you guys are on youtube, checking videos but you probably are.

Anyways, youtube has decided to demonetize videos which are not advertiser friendly. Now it makes sense that youtubers would take position against this and voice their concerns all over the place. I understand that. It's the same thing with any profession really. If you attack their livelihood, people naturally protest and take position against this intrusion, regardless of how legitimate the intrusion is.

It's very basic, human nature. We all want to fight for our own survival.

This being said, I for one, do not empathize with said youtubers. While I could write a long message about it, I find that watching the following video sums up my idea very well and does so eloquently.





As in any ideological struggle, the most convincing positions are the ones who appeal to morality. If people were to put forward their personal agenda transparently, they'd go along: "Please participate in collectively lobbying youtube so that my income remains the same". The problem with this, is that it would come across as selfish and not as pristine and ideological as it needs to be to gather crowds which actually support you.

As indie game devs, we're well aware of the importance of investing often limited financial resources in advertising in a way which will benefit us in the long term. Nobody invests in advertising just for giggles, it's a means to reach an end.

This is probably why I can understand why advertisers on youtube would want their ads on videos which will bring back a return on their investment. I'm sure those youtubers want the same thing when investing for their own advertisement. I mean, if those advertisers are the ones ultimately paying the youtubers, don't they have their say about how their money ends up being invested into?

Maybe you guys could give me a different perspective because I have this feeling of reeking entitlement right now which I just can't relate to as a "norm".

Thanks for reading!

[Alessio]

I don't completely grasp what "advertiser-friendly" means, sorry Nevermind, i got it. Surely doesn't sound anything positive from a Youtube star's point of view.

In any case, it's obvious that big-time youtubers now are against that: who wouldn't actually want to go Scrooge McDuck by filming themselves screaming and swearing while doing anything at all playing the newest video game? Too bad i can't see these lazybones ending like the Tramp from Modern Times anytime soon.

By the way, i almost totally agree with this policy. Almost because there are things that may be monetized but are actually for an older audience... but i'm not sure what may qualify as mature.

[Superb Joe]

ah sweet, thanks to the advertising driven model i can get paid for whatever worthless garbage i can think of. gah christ now my worthless "content" consisting of 69 videos of me playing mega man to the hum of my cpap machine is subject to the whims of the advertising driven model

[Nillo]

I like that this topic is now sitting next to the topic about Patreon, which (imo) is the best way to fund a youtube channel and more reliable than ad money

[Cobralad]

if "youtubers" were people of value they would organise an alternative site with the economy that suits their contains and doesnt force them to discuss their collegues sociopathy while playing cs go.

[Dacke]

The fact that it's up to advertisers to decide what's worth producing and what isn't is a deep and fundamental problem of our entire culture. It's one of the elements of the western system of propaganda, where people are encouraged to be "harmless" in their commentaries, don't rock the boat, don't question those with money and power or else you'll get sidelined.

This can perhaps be most obviously seen in US TV news, which are... I'm not sure what the correct term would be? Pathetic, corrupt, blatantly propagandistic?

Of course it isn't censorship, but it's very rare that actual censorship is used in the west to control and manipulate the discourse. It's much more sophisticated than that, these days.

Do note, however, that I wouldn't mind YT setting limits towards people who engage in hate speech, harassment, promoting fascism, etc. This is not a "anyone should be able to say anything anywhere!!"-rant. But rather a commentary on the mechanisms of propaganda in the west.

[s0]

I agree with Dacke.

[Cobralad]

i think the case is that people realised that youtube stuff does not turn money because its for kids and teens. Maybe its also got something to do with Keemstar saga and drama reaction channel economy that popped out in 2016.
If you think that they have some sort of deliberate conspiracy to make people think certain way you should check your drinks.

[Dacke]

there's no conspiracy required, it's a well known and well documented consequence of the advertisement model

Advertisers choose who gets money, those who are best at sucking up to the advertisers get funded and those who criticize them or the system don't. This creates a system where voices who question power get sidelined and status quo-enforcing voices get promoted. This is obviously in the best interest of both those who have enough money to advertise a lot (since they are the winners of the current status quo) and those who own the advertiser-friendly media (who also want to maintain the status quo).

So far, the advertisement model on the Internet has been relatively spared from this compared to old media. But this is nothing new.

[Dacke]

Though it is pretty clear that the super-rich, big corps and media-owers are aware of their power and often wield it (if you want to call that a conspiracy). This can easily be seen in, for example, the US news media.

[s0]

Though it is pretty clear that the super-rich, big corps and media-owers are aware of their power and often wield it (if you want to call that a conspiracy). This can easily be seen in, for example, the US news media.

my favorite is when fox news cites the new york post as source

[Zizka]

Advertisers choose who gets money, those who are best at sucking up to the advertisers get funded and those who criticizes them or the system don't.This creates a system where voices who question power get sidelined and status quo-enforcing voices get promoted. This is obviously in the best interest of both those who have enough money to advertise a lot (since they are the winners of the current status quo) and those who own the advertiser-friendly media (who also want to maintain the status quo).

I disagree with this, as far as youtube is concerned anyway. I think it's an analysis which overplays the role of emotions when it comes to advertising. I don't know if you watched the video I linked in the first message but if you haven't I strongly recommend it.

Advertisers just don't want their products to be linked to offensive/controversial videos. I'll give you a more grounded example so that we can leave generalizations and delve into practical territory. My game is a RPG game to learn Japanese. I wouldn't want my ad to show up on a video which discusses pedophiles in Japan. I think those videos are fine and can be interesting but I'd rather my ad show up on Japanese import rpg games. That's the connection I want people to have. The documentary about pedophiles might have more views but as an advertiser, I think it's fair that I decide what I want to have my game attached to.

I might choose the wrong video, maybe having ads on controversial videos might actually promote my game better but that's a choice which should be left to the investor to decide.

It's a decision based on what the future potential profit, not sucking to them. That's what I believe at least.

Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware that corporations couldn't care less about progressive causes which questions the world order because all they care about is profit and I don't believe there's such a thing as a philanthropic corporation. But that's exactly why corporations just want a good return on their investment and are not bothered about the whole "sucking up" thing.

I think the positive side to this is that it will weed out leechtubers; the equivalent of tabloids on youtube.

People who want to make controversial videos will still be allowed to do so, they just won't be paid for it. Now you would think that if someone is driven for a particular cause, they'd be willing to invest time and creativity to make people aware about it without wanting a paycheck to do so.

There's a youtuber called boogie2988 who's complaining that his videos about suicide prevention are not monetized anymore. I can understand his frustration. If I were serious about suicide prevention and genuinely wanted to help people who are at odds with this, I wouldn't moan about losing income about this video in particular.  

Now if we could only find a way to crack down on click baiting, we'd be well on our way!  

[Dacke]

I think it's an analysis which overplays the role of emotions when it comes to advertising.

uh, what?

[Zizka]

I mean the sucking up part, not the fact that ads appeal to emotions.

[Dacke]

what about the sucking up part, what does that have to do with feelings?

---

I think you're either misunderstanding the analysis or underestimating the power and motivations of big money interests. Yes, of course it's up to investors what to support. I'm just pointing out that this gives them power. Overwhelming evidence shows that this, as a matter of facts, fundamentally skews what the media output looks like.

Let's use suicide prevention is an example of the mechanisms involved. Under an advertisement model: if you can't get ads for suicide-prevention material, it becomes difficult to fund high-quality stuff. The system discourages production of such material and the ones who focus on other stuff will be able to have higher production values, get more attention and keep creating more of it. The system makes sure that production of suicide prevention material is disincentivized.

In the case of suicide prevention, I would be inclined to believe that it's just a victim of the blind greed of the capitalist system. While in other cases, there are clear political motivations to use the same mechanisms to suppress certain ideas.

[Zizka]

I misunderstood what you meant by "sucking up". I thought "sucking up" meant:

to praise someone in order to win their approval or good opinion
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/suck+up

so I couldn't see where the praise was coming into play when it came to advertising.

What you meant by "sucking up" was catering for their needs in a way which is pejorative if I read you correctly. As far as youtube is concerned, I don't see why that'd be something pejorative. Like you said, I might be misunderstanding your point however.

I'm just pointing out that this gives them power. Overwhelming evidence shows that this, as a matter of facts, fundamentally skews what the media output looks like.

Well, yes, it gives them power to finance things which will promote their products in a positive light. This in turn encourages certain, non-controversial content. I mean, it encourages it financially. It's up to youtubers from that point to make ideological decisions:
a. Do I make content which is advertiser friendly to make a living out of it?
b. Do I make what I feel like making and deal with the economic backlash my content might have?

I think this is an obvious case of having your cake and eating it too. "I want to make whatever I feel like making and be paid for it."

Under an advertisement model: if you can't get ads for suicide-prevention material, it becomes difficult to fund high-quality stuff.

I agree. I'm not sure how much it applies to youtube however as I'm under the impression that suicide related videos on youtube are fairly low budget (i.e. someone talking on a webcam about it).

In the case of suicide prevention, I would be inclined to believe that it's just a victim of the blind greed of the capitalist system. While in other cases, there are clear political motivations to use the same mechanisms to suppress certain ideas.

I think much more the former than the latter is concerned to be honest. I don't know, you make it sound like such a travesty, the "blind greed of capitalism". As far as youtube is concerned, I'm actually siding with investors on this one. If they're paying for a service it's up to the youtubers to provide optimal results for the service they're paying for. I don't see what's so bad about it. I'd like to see what's so immoral about this whole situation, I just don't see it.

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

[Dacke]

Okay, I watched the video rant.

He correctly explains that it's a systemic problem, that there are external pressures to produce status quo content and that we need to "understand the other side" in order to understand why this is the case. All true and echoes what I said.

Except that his analysis stops there. He doesn't say, hey, maybe this creates an environment which is bad for our culture and puts too much power in the hands of those with money. Instead he says to suck it up. Which only makes sense if you accept the premise that since we live in a capitalistic system we should just suck it up whenever that system has bad outcomes and not protest it. Because there are no other options besides allowing those with money to control what our culture looks like, right?

Well, yes, it gives them power to finance things which will promote their products in a positive light. This in turn encourages certain, non-controversial content. I mean, it encourages it financially. It's up to youtubers from that point to make ideological decisions:
a. Do I make content which is advertiser friendly to make a living out of it?
b. Do I make what I feel like making and deal with the economic backlash my content might have?

I think this is an obvious case of having your cake and eating it too. "I want to make whatever I feel like making and be paid for it."

Yes, we agree that having a system based on advertisements creates that dilemma.

I'm saying that this is a huge problem for our culture, where (for example) the independent press has been almost extinguished in traditional media and now the same (almost inevitable given the system) process is churning away at Internet media as well.

I'm not saying that I wish the advertisers would be nice and give me extra cake. I'm saying that this is a clear example of the corrupting power of advertisement on media and art. That we should be aware of the broader system: asking ourselves who ends up with power, how it affects what culture and information is spread, how it affects our thinking, who's interests are fundamentally being served by the system.

[Alessio]

Can it be difficult to determine quality material because of the ridicolous amount of videos in Youtube?

There may be a better system for quality control but when it's about controversial content is quite hard to determine it. I mean, if someone started making video about phantomatic alternative medicine (which was -and is- a serious problem in Italy) that makes you think that take concoctions will fight your ALS, i wouldn't want to give a cent to him. I wouldn't want to give a cent to people who spread lies. Who said boogie2988's suicide prevention videos are good? Sincerely i didn't watch them, actually so i can't judge but if i got who are we talking about, i don't believe he should complain at all since he uses foul language in most of his videos (and this is his reaction: Youtube is the guy on the right)

On the other hand, if i made a game, i would never let someone monetize on a playthrough video where foul language is used every five seconds.

I don't understand why this is about corruption, though: to me, corruption is an employer abusing and underpaying an employee and denying them rights that they have in the first place, and this happens very often, unfortunately. Keeping everymen from making easy money with tasteless and shallow content isn't corruption to me. Probably it's hard to entertain people without being vulgar and rude. I can get a nice laugh without hearing a stupid ISIS joke.

[Dacke]

I'm not talking about any specific instance. There are tons of videos that have been demonetized that are vile and I would never defend. I'm asking you to take a broader view and look at it from a systemic stand point.

We can do a similar systemic analysis of the current system. Let's assume that any video will get funded solely based on views. What would we expect this to encourage? Some obvious bad examples are clickbait, videos that are controversial for the sake of being controversial, videos that cater to demographics that are usually not given room in other contexts (including racists, sexists, etc.). I'm not saying this is good, either.

What kind of videos would we expect to be created if funding was solely determined based on what advertisers want? Well, basically the current US mainstream news media. Not rocking the boat, not questioning power, not reporting on abuses by big companies, the corrupting power of money, maintaining the status quo. Plus, of course, a bit of juicy sensationalism (as long as it doesn't challenge the status quo)

The only reason the news media isn't a complete failure is that journalists have (an idealized) proud tradition of questioning power and revealing it's abuses. But this is in direct conflict with the advertisment-arm of the media and it's clearly a loosing battle.